Most people think it costs too much for what you get and how much you value a d4 sensor. If the body costs $2250 versus $2750, I'm pretty sure everyone would have shut up. At $2750, you're pretty much at d800 pricing and I think except for the sensor and weight, the df loses EVERY comparison. I think it's the same situation compared to the $1900 D610

it is the price ... in europe nikon want to have 2.900,- euro ( equals 4000 us$ ) .... this is simply crazy and more expensive than a d800. for the price of a df-body i get a d610 with good lenses. (d610 body is 1.500,-euro) and this will give me excellent picture quality that is absolute compareable to the picture quality of a df .

Have you used a Df? I gave my wife the D610 ( I can, and do, still use it ) . IMHO the Df IQ wipes the D610. There are some things about the Df that do not thrill me but IQ is fantastic. I've shot everything with both ; BIF, Soccer, landscape, , buildings, etc. At times the 24 MP vs 16 is nice otherwise the Df just gives me great files.

I've had zero problems with the Df. Haven't even had the Battery Door come off and none of my lenses have needed fine tuning and that is a great joy . For me the AF is better than the D610.

In answer to the OP... there has been a lot of Nikon 'hate' going around for some time...Df is just the latest and I think a big problem is that the Df did not fulfil the hopes and expectations of many.

Sure, no camera is everything to everyone and there is some criticism of every Nikon FX model, but ...

Is it my imagination or does the Df get more than its share of, well, not hate but negative comments compared to the rest of Nikon's FX line?

If so, why?

As a niche camera sold at a premium price Nikon did not pick one niche to focus on.

As an example- it was promoted as vintage glass friendly but no high eye viewfinder for vintage eyes, no split prism focusing screen for focusing manual focus lenses, a grip not particularly suited to adult hands and no option for an additional grip.

Compact body with giant fast glass is as stupid in a camera as huge torso and bird legs is in a man.

I see the the other three FF Nikons (610, 800/e and 4s) to fit the job descriptions they were ostensibly designed for. Being 35mm their goodness is lost on me as has been every 35mm camera for decades. No fault of Nikon. If I was willing to settle for 2:3 several D800e bodies would sit in the cabinets now.

Sure, no camera is everything to everyone and there is some criticism of every Nikon FX model, but ...

Is it my imagination or does the Df get more than its share of, well, not hate but negative comments compared to the rest of Nikon's FX line?

If so, why?

As a pro, I'm simply envious of those who can use this camera for amateur work. It has the sensor I want, but with none of the pro features I need. I almost talked myself into compromising, and just getting one, but when I contacted NPS and requested the Df for evaluation, they said no. They said they don't offer the Df for evaluation because it's not professional equipment.

Completely agree with all of the below. The Df represents a new direction for Nikon, so it was bound to p some people off. Having said that, as Nikon has amongst the widest range of compatible lenses, it was always going to be a compromise. A digital FM3A that largely drove cosina lens sales was never on the cards.

It's funny - if you stuck a Fujifilm logo on the front people would think this was the best camera ever. Because it's a Nikon people throw rocks.

My own experience is extremely positive. The rendition of the sensor is staggeringly good, particularly the colours and the half tones. The skintones are better than just about any other camera with a 35mm sensor. Its light, durable and well made. I love the controls, even the locks! I wish there was an option for interchangeable focus screens, but that's about it.

tommiejeep wrote:

Have you used a Df? I gave my wife the D610 ( I can, and do, still use it ) . IMHO the Df IQ wipes the D610. There are some things about the Df that do not thrill me but IQ is fantastic. I've shot everything with both ; BIF, Soccer, landscape, , buildings, etc. At times the 24 MP vs 16 is nice otherwise the Df just gives me great files.

I've had zero problems with the Df. Haven't even had the Battery Door come off and none of my lenses have needed fine tuning and that is a great joy . For me the AF is better than the D610.

In answer to the OP... there has been a lot of Nikon 'hate' going around for some time...Df is just the latest and I think a big problem is that the Df did not fulfil the hopes and expectations of many.

Because most of it is uninformed BS based purely on discussion of specifications, rather than actual use? I quote Nasim from Photography Life:

"What I find hard to digest, is the hatred Nikon Df receives from some people. Why would someone hate a camera they are not obliged to buy or use?.. This is a Nikon original with a whole different concept, a complete deviation from Nikon’s typical product line. It is something new, something refreshing after the long tradition of making the same-looking black DSLR cameras...

Interestingly, most of the hate that I see on the Internet is from those that have never used or touched the camera. But that’s the age we live in – people’s feelings get intensified and amplified by the power of free speech and anonymity the Internet provides. Their judgement is based on pure specifications and the price tag – something the Df obviously does not excel at when compared to alternatives. Plus, it is not a camera without faults; it is expected that it would create plenty of controversy and negative buzz."

In the past Nikon bashing was far more limited because all the couch critics with specs-based arguments were using Canon and were wrecking havoc among each others on 'the other side'

Buts as Canon has assembled quite a disappointing record over the last couple of years( D5II AF, EOS Mark D3, EOS 6D, EOS M, EOS 60D0, unfortunately many of those 'experts' have switched to Nikon, and now flood the Nikon fora with their non-experience, vague rumor based, internet 'hype' informed nonsense

For discussion sake tell them they're right, and just ignore such 'discussions'

If you really want an interesting and truly relevant read on what a genuinely experienced Nikon veteran (Bjorn Roslett) thinks of the DF ( and his almost daily based impressions, opposed to the only too abundant 'I handled the camera for 10 minutes in my local shop and now am an expert' and ' I read it somewhere on the internet' opinions) check this discussion

Of course somewhere among the (well over 1500) there's some 'critical voice' who tries to twist it into another DF controversy, but fortunately it's nipped in the bud quite elegantly by Bjorn before it started (page 4 of the reactions)

So it's just hoping that Canon will bring out a fanboy attracting new gizmo soon, then hopefuly things will become quite again on the Nikon side (apart from the familiar 'my Canon is superior over your Nikon')...

If they put the D4 sensor in the D800 body, I would sell my D3s and my D3x and buy 2 of them immediately - which is of course why they did not do that, because they'd lose 80% of their D4 sales!

Put the D4S sensor in a D7100/D300/D700/D800 body with a huge buffer and 9 fps (10 with grip) Expeed 4 and the new AF... call it anything they want and I'm in . Give me a Dx with big buffer 7/8 fps-9 with grip with the new AF, better ISO (even if less MP than 24) and I'll buy it. Oh, and keep them at $3000 or less

I'm easy to please , aren't we all ?....... lol

On a serious note, I've been shooting a soccer Tournament with the Df /80-400as and 300 2.8 w/wo tc1.4 for the past week. The grip on the D3S is much better for shooting an entire match handheld. The 2nd camera being the D610/70-200vrII which works fine just not as fast as the gripped D700 but the 24 MP is nice for cropping. Tomorrow I'll shoot the D3S and Df, head to head for IQ, using the 300 2.8 and 70-200vrII. Shame the matches start late afternoon (5:15 PM) so the D300s/D7100 are not viable options.

Sure, no camera is everything to everyone and there is some criticism of every Nikon FX model, but ...

Is it my imagination or does the Df get more than its share of, well, not hate but negative comments compared to the rest of Nikon's FX line?

If so, why?

As a pro, I'm simply envious of those who can use this camera for amateur work. It has the sensor I want, but with none of the pro features I need. I almost talked myself into compromising, and just getting one, but when I contacted NPS and requested the Df for evaluation, they said no. They said they don't offer the Df for evaluation because it's not professional equipment.

Try using it, then YOU WILL HAVE A SECOND OPINION... (New Df owner here, from D610 to Df, It is ASTONISHING for my Work) I'm not a pro though, just love to shoot.